My idea for maximum Delay Repay threshold of 75%

[sheff1]

200% refunds are not available. It caps out at the ticket full value.

Not in my experience. ]I've had 150% 'refunds' for a 2+ hour delay in one direction and a 1-2 hour delay in the other direction, and 200% 'refunds' for (the very rare instances of) 2+ hour delays in both directions.

By definition a refund cannot be for more than the price paid. Anything more is compensation, goodwill etc. Delay Repay is compensation.

 

[All Line Rover]

Hence the apostrophes.

 

[sheff1]

The post you quoted said 200% refunds are not available. You replied "not in my experience". So when have you been given 200% refunds ?

 

[Merseysider]

Perhaps ALR was referring to the point at which compensation of 50% of return/100% of single becomes 100% of return, in which case that is 200% of the value of half of the return journey?

 

[All Line Rover]

I've added the apostrophes to the one place they were missing.

 

[sheff1]

Perhaps ALR was referring to the point at which compensation of 50% of return/100% of single becomes 100% of return, in which case that is 200% of the value of half of the return journey?

But that is not a refund.

 

[Merseysider]

But that is not a refund.

No it is not. It would be compensation.

The general public generally doesn’t make the distinction.

 

[sheff1]

I've added the apostrophes to the one place they were missing.

There were no apostrophes in the post you quoted and which is 100% correct.

 

[All Line Rover]

I understand that post 25 was a reply to (my) post 24, where I was talking about Delay Repay, not (genuine) refunds for abandoned journeys.

 

[sheff1]

No it is not. It would be compensation.

Which is exactly what said in post #31.

The general public generally doesn’t make the distinction.

I am sure the general public do not make a distinction between many things (Penalty Fare and fine, for example) but as this is a thread making a suggestion to reduce the amount of compensation payable I think the terminology needs to be correct.

 

[All Line Rover]

Sorry if this wasn't clear. Yes, we are talking about Delay Repay compensation (in practice equivalent to a full, partial, or more-than-full 'refund').

 

[route:oxford]

I don't really see the value of this proposal. What problem would it solve ?

It doesn't solve any problems.

All it would do is shift thousands of claims to the small claims courts for abusing the passenger by failing to implement the CRA.

 

[sheff1]

I understand that post 25 was a reply to (my) post 24, where I was talking about Delay Repay, not (genuine) refunds for abandoned journeys.

Sorry if this wasn't clear. Yes, we are talking about Delay Repay compensation (in practice equivalent to a full, partial, or more-than-full 'refund').

Fair enough.

Moving on, I am interested why you think that in cases such as the one I outlined in post#30 a Delay Repay payment of 100% is inappropriate.

 

[All Line Rover]

cf111 was, as I understand it, referring to a delay during the return leg of a journey where it is not possible to abandon the journey (foremost, because one cannot alight the train). I made the point that the act of being transported to the destination (or origin of the overall journey - however you choose to describe it), though delayed, is not a service of 'zero value'.

In your example of being transported to Edinburgh on the Monday, surely you wanted to be in Edinburgh for the appointment 'first thing' on the Tuesday? In which case the transportation on the Monday, though delayed, still had some value, and compensation to the value of 100% of the single journey (or 200% of the single journey if a return ticket was held) - particularly in the case of high value long-distance fares (e.g. a £200 1st Advance) - seems disproportionate.

 

[Merseysider]

Which is exactly what said in post #31.

In case it wasn’t clear, I was agreeing with the point you made. Maybe you didn’t intend it but this post comes across as quite patronising.

It doesn't solve any problems.

All it would do is shift thousands of claims to the small claims courts for abusing the passenger by failing to implement the CRA.

Quite.

And result in lower passenger numbers for those who get fed up and decide to drive or take the bus next time.

 

[All Line Rover]

If Delay Repay's present incarnation drives passenger numbers (to the extent that, after Delay Repay has been paid, there is a net financial gain to the rail industry), I would be interested to know why SNCF (inter alia) have not implemented anything near as generous.

Transport Focus' research seems to suggest that the main driver for passenger satisfaction and growth is not compensating delays, but minimising delays.

 

[yorksrob]

• There's an element of incentive with delay repay to encourage the railway industry to minimise delays.
• There's an element of administrative cost for delay repay.

Both of these would still be the case with 75% compensation as it is with 100% compensation, therefore I see no benefit.

All I can see is a disadvantage to the passenger.

 

[All Line Rover]

The difference would be that, where there is a period of regular disruption due to external factors, such as suicides or snow, the affected TOCs would not be operating a 'free' service. Which is what sparked this thread.

 

[yorksrob]

The difference would be that, where there is a period of regular disruption due to external factors, such as suicides or snow, the affected TOCs would not be operating a 'free' service. Which is what sparked this thread.

I don't really see a problem if the railway does end up providing a "free" service - which in effect it doesn't as the majority of passengers claiming it will be regular passengers who pay a lot more over the year than they get back. The majority of us pay far more than we will ever get back anyway, so its a slight decrease in the revenue they get from us.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't solve any problems.

All it would do is shift thousands of claims to the small claims courts for abusing the passenger by failing to implement the CRA.

Yes, that sounds about it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A quick scan of the threads on this very forum relating to disruption caused by fatalities indicates that most occur at/near busy, staffed, stations.

My experience is more that it is reported on NRE etc as disruption at the nearest "big" station. My (anecdotal not professional) experience is that it doesn't happen at Stevenage or Peterborough, it's at the smaller inner-suburban stations, especially on the ECML, GWML and WCML.

Away from London then yes, level crossings are a problem, both for intentional and unintentional fatalities.

The fencing has worked, though I simply don't think it replaces staff on the platform.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I simply feel that regular 100% / 200% 'refunds' of £100+ tickets (most often a primary consequence of suicides)

My experience is that the Delay Repay claims I tend to make are not resulting from fatalities. Most are due to either train failures or the failure of signalling or OHLE. When I was regularly commuting on London Midland it was normally due to staff shortages or a failed LM train. Fatalities were not common.

Look at the most recent problems on the ECML, especially the cluster-mess-up at Spalding the other week. Nothing to do with fatalities and everything to do with shoddy trains and even more shoddy service recovery by Virgin. Service management as bad as that should hit them hard in the pocket, and Delay Repay should be designed to have a punitive effect in that situation. Cash is the only stick the TOCs care about.

 

[Samuel88]

I disagree wholeheartedly! In fact not only should you get 100% of your fare back, you should be able to claim it back immediately at your arrival station instead of having to send off tickets and waiting weeks for a decision!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not in my experience. I've had 150% 'refunds' for a 2+ hour delay in one direction and a 1-2 hour delay in the other direction, and 200% 'refunds' for (the very rare instances of) 2+ hour delays in both directions.

If a refund was issued by the ticket seller (a genuine refund) rather than by the delayed TOC, this couldn't happen.

What delay reoay scheme gives a greater value than the ticket purchased.

None of them. @All Line Rover I think you may have got away with that due to an admin issue i.e. they didn't notice.

I claimed some Southern Delay Repay recently. One thing I noticed that was stated on their site was that you can't claim above the value of the ticket for any given ticket. I forget the wording, but I always believed that was the case.

 

[bb21]

200% refunds are not available. It caps out at the ticket full value.

In any case, those advocating such a system probably didn't think hard enough as to where the money will come from.

 

[All Line Rover]

I claimed some Southern Delay Repay recently. One thing I noticed that was stated on their site was that you can't claim above the value of the ticket for any given ticket. I forget the wording, but I always believed that was the case.

Where does it say that? https://www.southernrailway.com/help-and-support/journey-problems/delay-repay-compensation

All I can see is: "If you're delayed by... 120+ minutes you're entitled to 100% of the cost of the fare paid whether it was for a single or return journey." Southern might argue that a delay on the return leg, where there has already been a 120+ minute delay on the outward leg, only extends the 120+ minute delay already incurred. Looking at the cumulative delay would be sensible. But this certainly isn't clear from the webpage.

 

[sefton]

Which is why Delay Repay really needs to be subject to a maximum repayment threshold of 75%, as is the practice for similar schemes in certain continental European countries. Getting a person from A to B is not a 'worthless' service no matter how late that person arrives at B (otherwise they would have abandoned their journey and received a full refund), especially over the long distances covered by TOCs such as Virgin WC.

I might agree with you if the reason for the delay is outside the control of the train company.

However any delay where the fault sits with any aspect within their control should be subject to a multiplication factor of 200%.

 

[bb21]

I might agree with you if the reason for the delay is outside the control of the train company.

However any delay where the fault sits with any aspect within their control should be subject to a multiplication factor of 200%.

Are you going to fund it through general taxation then because I am sure as hell money is not going to come from reduced TOC profit margins?

 

[sefton]

Are you going to fund it through general taxation then because I am sure as hell money is not going to come from reduced TOC profit margins?

And that is the fundimental problem with train companies in the UK; even if they are completely incompetent they don't suffer any penalty. So what incentive is there to deliver anything vaguely acceptable.

 

[bb21]

And that is the fundimental problem with train companies in the UK; even if they are completely incompetent they don't suffer any penalty. So what incentive is there to deliver anything vaguely acceptable.

That is incorrect. There are plenty of ways TOCs can end up in a bad shape if they were incompetent. Plenty of areas where TOCs can trip up if they don't manage things properly.

Just that changing the way Delay Repay works is not really going to have that effect.